• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

I'm not saying his view of how to read it is incorrect, but simply its not the ONLY way in which to view it. He says to rule in their favor would be to rule religious groups have a right to public funding. I'm saying that another way to look at it is ruling in their favor means that religious groups should have the same right to funds as anyone else and that arbitrarily withholding funds because you disagree with their KIND of discrimination is wrong.

Since we're not talking about random groups but college groups, this is my view....

College group A, lets say a greek fraternity, discriminates based on gender (only males can join)

College group B, lets say a christian organization, discriminates based on sexual preference (won't let homosexuals join)

what I'm saying is its wrong to give PUBLIC colleges the arbitrary power to say "We'll give Group A funds because we don't mind their kind of discrimination because its based on tradition, but we disagree with group B's discrimination because its based on bigoted religious views"

I also see it less of a freedom of speech issue and more of a right to assembly thing mixed with it. Unless you're going to apply the rules fairly across the board with a PUBLIC school using PUBLIC funding, then the rule shouldn't be in place. A school should not get to pick and choose which kind of discrimination its fine with or what reasoning for discrimination its fine with. To me, this is what this ruling seems to set up is a situation where there is no uniformity, but rather the ability by the schools to arbitrarily deem certain social requirements or actions of a group of people "okay" or not without being consistent with the use of public funds.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not saying his view of how to read it is incorrect, but simply its not the ONLY way in which to view it. He says to rule in their favor would be to rule religious groups have a right to public funding. I'm saying that another way to look at it is ruling in their favor means that religious groups should have the same right to funds as anyone else and that arbitrarily withholding funds because you disagree with their KIND of discrimination is wrong.

Since we're not talking about random groups but college groups, this is my view....

College group A, lets say a greek fraternity, discriminates based on gender (only males can join)

College group B, lets say a christian organization, discriminates based on sexual preference (won't let homosexuals join)

what I'm saying is its wrong to give PUBLIC colleges the arbitrary power to say "We'll give Group A funds because we don't mind their kind of discrimination because its based on tradition, but we disagree with group B's discrimination because its based on bigoted religious views"

I also see it less of a freedom of speech issue and more of a right to assembly thing mixed with it. Unless you're going to apply the rules fairly across the board with a PUBLIC school using PUBLIC funding, then the rule shouldn't be in place. A school should not get to pick and choose which kind of discrimination its fine with or what reasoning for discrimination its fine with. To me, this is what this ruling seems to set up is a situation where there is no uniformity, but rather the ability by the schools to arbitrarily deem certain social requirements or actions of a group of people "okay" or not without being consistent with the use of public funds.
Click to expand...

You call it arbitrary, I call it local control of funding. Remember, nobody is denying these groups from actually existing, just from getting public funding and recognition. Since when is there a right to that? What's the alternative? Force the university via federal mandate to accept and fund all groups that apply?

Seems to me that this ruling was made deliberately narrow. You do not have a constitutional right to funding for any student group. That's all they said. The rest bounces back with the lower courts. If you rule that there's a consitutional right to funding of discrimination, you're going to have to answer for it when the KKK sends in an application for a student group.
 
Deuce said:
You call it arbitrary, I call it local control of funding. Remember, nobody is denying these groups from actually existing, just from getting public funding and recognition. Since when is there a right to that? What's the alternative? Force the university via federal mandate to accept and fund all groups that apply?

Seems to me that this ruling was made deliberately narrow. You do not have a constitutional right to funding for any student group. That's all they said. The rest bounces back with the lower courts. If you rule that there's a consitutional right to funding of discrimination, you're going to have to answer for it when the KKK sends in an application for a student group.
Click to expand...

However if a Campus is going to arbitrarily decide which discrimination under the law is okay or not to get funding then it begins to point to issues other than the discrimination that is the determining factor. For example if you give benefits to Fraternities, which discriminate on Gender, but don't give it to a club like this, that discriminates on sexual preference, then it leads on to believe your issue is not discrimination but something larger than that, in which case its a school using public funds to push an agenda.

This is my issue in a larger case, is the fact that it essentially is giving carte blanche for PUBLIC institutions to create agenda driven requirements that they can arbitrarily enforce to deny student groups that adhere to all other rules but simply are of an ideological stance that the college disagrees with benefits that another organization doing a similar thing but is ideologically in line with the campus would be receiving.

To try and use your hyperbolic example, this would be like banning the KKK from protesting but allowing the Black Panther's because of a law stating that hate groups can't protest but choosing to only enforce it against a hate group the local cops dislike.
 
Why does a university fund such groups in the first place? Everyone is always complaining about how expensive higher education is. Maybe they should lower tuition and let groups find their own damn funding?

.
 
Zyphlin said:
However if a Campus is going to arbitrarily decide which discrimination under the law is okay or not to get funding then it begins to point to issues other than the discrimination that is the determining factor. For example if you give benefits to Fraternities, which discriminate on Gender, but don't give it to a club like this, that discriminates on sexual preference, then it leads on to believe your issue is not discrimination but something larger than that, in which case its a school using public funds to push an agenda.

This is my issue in a larger case, is the fact that it essentially is giving carte blanche for PUBLIC institutions to create agenda driven requirements that they can arbitrarily enforce to deny student groups that adhere to all other rules but simply are of an ideological stance that the college disagrees with benefits that another organization doing a similar thing but is ideologically in line with the campus would be receiving.

To try and use your hyperbolic example, this would be like banning the KKK from protesting but allowing the Black Panther's because of a law stating that hate groups can't protest but choosing to only enforce it against a hate group the local cops dislike.
Click to expand...

So what would you rule? That there's a constitutional entitlement to public funding of student groups?
 
TOJ said:
Why does a university fund such groups in the first place? Everyone is always complaining about how expensive higher education is. Maybe they should lower tuition and let groups find their own damn funding?

.
Click to expand...

This is my feeling on the subject. Religious organizations shouldn't get public funding not because they discriminate against homosexuals; rather religious organizations shouldn't get public funding because they are religious organizations and therefore subject to separation of church and state. It's best when we keep religion out of government and government out of religion.
 
samsmart said:
This is my feeling on the subject. Religious organizations shouldn't get public funding not because they discriminate against homosexuals; rather religious organizations shouldn't get public funding because they are religious organizations and therefore subject to separation of church and state. It's best when we keep religion out of government and government out of religion.
Click to expand...

What do you think about them getting tax breaks on their property?
 
texmaster said:
Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.

This is what you really want?
Click to expand...
Sure. If they want to discriminate against gays, then they can start their own privately funded group.
 
RightinNYC said:
So because the court said one thing, you think that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of it doesn't "understand the Constitution and equal protection analysis"? Does that same logic apply to SC decisions that you don't like?
Click to expand...

I think he was just getting back for the usual conservative taking point.

I am having a hard time finding where this ruling infringes on any ones rights. If you want public support, you have to follow simple nondiscriminatory rules, if the public school has such rules. This idea that saying groups cannot act in a discriminatory manner to get public support is not a violation of free speech to my mind.
 
winston53660 said:
What do you think about them getting tax breaks on their property?
Click to expand...

I don't care if they do or not. I would prefer it that churches who take in a high amount of tithes have to prove they've done charitable works in order to get tax breaks on their property, though. I only want churches who take in a high amount of tithes to prove this, though, because there are a lot of smaller churches who take in just enough for operating costs. Also, smaller churches are more likely to spend the tithes they receive on charitable works, while larger churches act more like a business than a church.

I'm not saying this because I want to be critical of churches and religion, but rather be critical to those religious organizations who get tax breaks because they're supposed to do charitable works without actually doing any charity.

But that's getting rather off topic on this thread.
 
texmaster said:
Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.

This is what you really want?
Click to expand...

They would have to tolerate every group people, there's a difference there
 
Deuce said:
So what would you rule? That there's a constitutional entitlement to public funding of student groups?
Click to expand...

I would likely say that rules regarding public funding of student groups should be uniformly applied and that the school was in the right for denying public funds if they do not give any public funds or perks to any other groups on campus that discriminate in some such way; but if they DO give public funds to such groups then those groups would need to be cut from funding or privledges along with keeping this group from receiving it.

Essentially, that PUBLIC universities don't get to dictate who gets PUBLIC money based on whether or not they agree with the ideology of the group and thus decide to turn a blind eye to potential violations of the rules. Either they enforce the rules evenly or they remove the rule.
 
samsmart said:
This is my feeling on the subject. Religious organizations shouldn't get public funding not because they discriminate against homosexuals; rather religious organizations shouldn't get public funding because they are religious organizations and therefore subject to separation of church and state. It's best when we keep religion out of government and government out of religion.
Click to expand...
Why restrict it to religious groups? Why are the universities funding any groups? If some people want to form an organization, why don't they fund it themselves?

Why aren't the universities using their funds to educate students?

.
 
TOJ said:
Why restrict it to religious groups? Why are the universities funding any groups? If some people want to form an organization, why don't they fund it themselves?

Why aren't the universities using their funds to educate students?

.
Click to expand...

The reason why we restrict religious groups is because we have a doctrine of separation of the Establishment Clause in our Constitution. That clause is the reason for the separation of church and state our nation enjoys. That's why religious organizations on campus are subject to this but athletic or academic on-campus organizations aren't.
 
Alex said:
If the money is coming from public funds, I believe any school group is entitled to it without political consideration.
Click to expand...

See, I guess that's where I differ. For me, the fact that it is coming from public funds is exactly why no group is entitled to it. I believe that the school has a duty set up rules that must be adhered to in order for the funds to be allocated to a particular group.

Otherwise, someone lik emyself would create a school group for the simple purpose of using public funds to get drunk. If any school group is entitled to it. I'd make it a study group and tutor the other members in between beers.
 
I agree absolutely and completely Tuck. "Any" school group shouldn't necessarily be afforded funds. Additionally not all discrimination is equal. IE, discrimination based on grades is different than discrimination based on gender. However there are generally federally and state defined instances that get equal protection, such as gender, and race. All I'd say is that if a school can withhold funds and privledges because of discrimination against one of these type groups then it should be clear, consistant, and evenly applied to any group discriminating against any of those protected classes.
 
TOJ said:
Why restrict it to religious groups? Why are the universities funding any groups? If some people want to form an organization, why don't they fund it themselves?

Why aren't the universities using their funds to educate students?

.
Click to expand...

Yes - I wonder this, too.
I didn't realize these groups weren't self-funded. News to me.
It makes little sense that a school would be funding a social-group . . . while at the same time raising everyone's costs for schooling.

:shrug:
 
Really, its going to have little real affect if this group is intelligent.

You do what many ethnic groups on campus do. You don't restrict membership, but you make the actions and purpose of the group such that those individuals won't want to join to take an active role. If this group focused on say, cases and activities that pushed their view points including pushing against gay marriage, against gay adoption, against the notion of gays as something other than a sinful life style, etc through the various activities of the group then I doubt you'd find many homosexuals WANTING to join. The only ones likely to want to join are those seeking to cause a disruption, in which case will perform actions that will violate legitimate rules of the club to call for them being expelled.

At that point if the school wanted to restrict them funding despite them following the laws they'd have to do it specifically and obviously due to ideological issues.
 
Deuce said:
Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding - Politics - msnbc.com



Seems like a reasonable decision to me. The first amendment protects your right to discriminate but it does not protect your right to receive public funding or recognition to enable your discrimination. (the Christian group in question excluded homosexuals)

5-4 decision, with the expected conservative/liberal split and Kennedy siding with the liberals on this one. That four supreme court justices think the first amendment protects your right to public funding of discrimination is fairly disturbing.

On the plus side, this gives some hope to the folks waiting on overturn of California's Prop 8, as it shows that Kennedy wont automatically side against homosexuality. Overturning Prop 8 is a much bigger decision, though, so how he ends up in the inevitable Supreme Court case remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Seems to me, that you're correct.

Christian groups have no business seeking federal funds for anything, the idea of seeking federal money, runs counter to theChristian Church and American Principle. As is nearly always the case, old mores always bear out the truth and one of my favorites is: "He that pays the Piper, calls the tune." Or put in modern terms, "The guy that paid for the band gets to choose the music." Meaning simply that those Christian groups that do not seek or utilize Federal funds, need not concern themselves with this decision.

GRAB A CLUE!
 
Zyphlin said:
I agree absolutely and completely Tuck. "Any" school group shouldn't necessarily be afforded funds. Additionally not all discrimination is equal. IE, discrimination based on grades is different than discrimination based on gender. However there are generally federally and state defined instances that get equal protection, such as gender, and race. All I'd say is that if a school can withhold funds and privledges because of discrimination against one of these type groups then it should be clear, consistant, and evenly applied to any group discriminating against any of those protected classes.
Click to expand...

I'd be more inclined to agree if you changed the word "can" (which I bolded) to "chooses to" as in "if a school chooses to withhold funds and privledges because of discrimination against one of these type groups then it should be clear, consistant, and evenly applied to any group discriminating against any of those protected classes."

That gives the school the option of not witholding funds for that reason.

I would also add that if the group can show a non-arbitrary reason for their discrimination there should be exceptions made. For example, a Christian group has a non-arbitrary reason to deny membership to non-Christians. A womens group has non-arbitray reasons for denying membership to non-women. etc.
 
See, I agree with your initial stance, I disagree with the later.

The arbitrary thing becomes questionable. For example, with regards to the Christian one, is it simply what we define ourselves as to what others must accept us as? For example if its a Christian group that believes those who are homosexual can not be "christians" because they are routinely and knowingly, without any attempt to repent or change the fact, engaging in a "sinful" life style? Should they be forced to allow someone they don't believe is Christian but considers themselves such into their club to be able to get funding? And if so, who makes the determination of what's "arbitrary" or not? In a similar vein, if an "African American" club restricts its membership due to race does it have a right to deny someone who wants to join the club because the actions being undertaken are important to him due to being raised by a black step father, but the club doesn't consider him African American so would deny him entry?

It seems to me your later statement is simply interjecting an additional way for discrimination to be allowable if its in such a way that doesn't bother the college in an ideological sense, again creating a defacto situation here they can discriminate against people with public funds based on arbitrary political views.
 
the makeout hobo said:
They would have to tolerate every group people, there's a difference there
Click to expand...

Thats the same thing.

So if a NABMLA memeber wanted to join a liberal group and they denied them they should loose funding because that would be "descrimination"
 
It would depend Tex.

If they denied them because of some rule in regards to membership that was allowable by the school (Say the group stated you must have a 3.0 GPA and the NAMBLA member didn't) then no.

If they had a rule stating "Sexual Perverts are not allowed" and denied him, then yeah, it likely would be discrimination.

If they could not articulate ANY rule in their membership that they denied him based on, then yeah, again, likely discrimination.
 
Zyphlin said:
It would depend Tex.

If they denied them because of some rule in regards to membership that was allowable by the school (Say the group stated you must have a 3.0 GPA and the NAMBLA member didn't) then no.

If they had a rule stating "Sexual Perverts are not allowed" and denied him, then yeah, it likely would be discrimination.

If they could not articulate ANY rule in their membership that they denied him based on, then yeah, again, likely discrimination.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is the lunacy of this thought process. All personal behavior must be tolerated no matter what it is.
 
Mind you, them having this rule in their membership makes me think they're along the same lines as the Lesbian Prom chick from some months ago, whose doing something stubbornly primarily and specifically to get attention.

As I've said before, if they didn't want homosexuals they could've not had that rule and just made it a point to each semester do some kind of legal work that goes towards limiting the rights of homosexuals, creating a defacto disincentive for them to join ala ethnic clubs. They could have some kind of membership process where to become a full member you must be picked by a majority of membership, ala a fraternity, in which case you could make statements such as the individual not seeming to display an aptitude for working and meshing well with the individuals of the group during his times around them. Etc. Could complaints still happen at that point? Sure, but it would be far harder to prove "discrimination" in those cases then when you have it blatantly and boldly in your rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom